Search for: "State v. Lord"
Results 1021 - 1040
of 3,608
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Oct 2017, 2:00 am
R (HC) v Secretary of State for Works and Pensions & Ors, heard 21-22 Jun 2017. [read post]
28 Apr 2015, 2:43 am
The dissent is notable, if only for the fact the President of the court, Lord Neuberger, and Lord Sumption are the two dissenters. [read post]
10 Jul 2017, 1:00 am
R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor, heard 27-28 Mar 2017. [read post]
27 Jun 2016, 3:44 am
It stated the report was to be provided to the lenders, Airtours was only to be provided with a copy which could be redacted. [read post]
12 Oct 2020, 1:00 am
The proposed panel for hand down is Lord Reed, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Kitchin, Lord Hamblen, and Lord Burrows. [read post]
17 Apr 2013, 6:53 am
In that sense the Supreme Court judgment has similarities to the Canadian Supreme Court Copyright Pentalogy and the CJEU decision in Usedsoft v Oracle.The approach articulated by Lord Sumption is the opposite of that stated by Proudman J at first instance: "The exception cannot have been intended to legitimise all copies made in the course of browsing or users would be permitted to watch pirated films and listen to pirated music." [read post]
30 Jan 2014, 1:31 am
Core Issues Trust, R (On the Application of) v Transport for London & Another [2014] EWCA Civ 34 is a fascinating ruling of the Court of Appeal, England and Wales (Lord Dyson MR, Lord Justice Briggs and Lord Justice Christopher Clarke) since it isn't an intellectual property case at all, but has the potential to raise so many IP issues. [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 3:41 am
Lady Hale, with the concurrence of Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes and Lord Hodge, gave a decision based squarely on the language of the statute, of which the Court adopted a precise and tailored reading. [read post]
13 May 2015, 2:59 am
In giving the leading judgment Lord Neuberger stated that courts in the UK have consistently held that it is necessary for a claimant to have actual goodwill, in the sense of a customer base, in this jurisdiction before it can satisfy the requirement for the law of passing off. [read post]
17 Jun 2019, 1:00 am
Patel v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Secretary of State for the Home Department v Shah, heard 7 May 2019. [read post]
22 Jan 2018, 4:11 pm
Forum non conveniens The Claimant relied on EU case law (Owusu v Jackson (C-281/2002) and Maletic v lastminute.com GmbH (C-478-12)) to argue that the court was precluded from considering forum non conveniens issues. [read post]
4 Jul 2017, 4:30 pm
(iii) It seems to me the parties are generally entitled to state their respective cases in such a statement and their respective admissions. [read post]
19 Jul 2008, 11:22 am
United States. [read post]
14 Nov 2014, 8:45 am
In R (Lord Carlile of Berriew QC & Ors) v SSHD; the Court ruled by a 4-1 majority that the executive’s decision to bar Mrs Rajavi’s admission into the UK on grounds that it would not be conducive to the public good was rational and Secretary of State had not underrated the appellants’ ECHR, art 10 rights or overstated the risk. [read post]
30 Nov 2010, 2:26 am
CMEC appealed.In the Court of Appeal Lord Justice Etherton found (at paragraph 50) that the Judge had been wrong to conclude that the Commission was a creditor entitled to participate in, and that it was bound by, the IVA. [read post]
12 Nov 2021, 12:01 am
Manderino, writing for the court in Kroger Co. v. [read post]
15 Jun 2016, 2:26 am
Lord Neuberger and Lady Hale also stated that even if the court had been able to find the possession order disproportionate to her rights under art 8, the appellant could not assume that this would have led to the order being refused. [read post]
17 Dec 2008, 11:54 am
Lord (Wis. 2006) 723 N.W.2d 425; see also People v. [read post]
12 Apr 2011, 5:00 pm
DONE at the city of Washington this sixth day of May in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred seventy-six and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundredth. [read post]
20 Nov 2011, 4:20 pm
Lord Justice Leveson warned the press that he would be monitoring coverage for adverse coverage of Inquiry witnesses. [read post]
